InformedCitizen.usBeta
Became lawOverturns a rulePublic landsEnergyEnvironment

Mineral and geothermal leasing in Minnesota

H.J.Res. 140 · Resolution · Introduced Jan. 12, 2026

This bill would open about 225,504 acres of Minnesota national forest land to mineral and geothermal leasing for developers.

At a glance

Who it affects

  • Mineral and geothermal energy developers
  • Lake Superior Chippewa

Where it stands

Passed the House 214 to 208 on Jan. 21.

Passed the Senate 50 to 49 on April 16.

Lobbying and money

21 groups lobbied on it: advocacy group or nonprofit, trade group, labor union, company.

Top link: Int'l Association of Bridge Structural Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers lobbied on it and gave $5,000 via PACs; $0 via lobbyists; $0 via employees to 1 SC members.

See who gave to whom ↓

What it would do

Written with AI from the official summary by Congress's research office.

How South Carolina voted

House vote coverage is incomplete for 2025–2026. Vote and flagged-bill counts reflect imported records only; missing votes don't mean a member didn't vote.

Other votes on this bill (2)
  • Senate · Vote to set it aside · April 15, 2026 · Approved

    A yes vote sets the question aside without a direct vote, which usually ends it.

    Graham: Yes · Scott: Yes

    Official vote ↗
  • Senate · Vote to start debate · April 15, 2026 · Approved

    Graham: Yes · Scott: Yes

    Official vote ↗

Groups that lobbied on it and gave to SC's members

PAC, lobbyist campaign and qualifying employee money this election, shown separately and never added together. Lobbying reports name the bills a group worked on, not which side it took.

GroupWhat it isGave SC membersMembers
Int'l Association of Bridge Structural Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron WorkersLabor union

PAC: $5,000

1
Nfib (National Federation of Independent Business)Trade group

Lobbyists: $5,000

3
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A.Trade group

Lobbyists: $1,000

1
See all groups, by member

Members without a final recorded vote are grayed out and excluded from totals. Events and honors are not campaign money and aren't included. Matches use exact organization names.

OrganizationDarline GrahamNo voteLindsey GrahamYesTim ScottYesJim ClyburnNoJoe WilsonYesNancy MaceYesRalph NormanYesRussell FryYesSheri BiggsYesWilliam TimmonsYesMembers
Int'l Association of Bridge Structural Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers–––

PAC: $5,000

––––––1
Nfib (National Federation of Independent Business)–

Lobbyists: $3,000

–––––

Lobbyists: $1,000

Lobbyists: $1,000

–3
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A.–––

Lobbyists: $1,000

––––––1

Official record

Official title, sponsor and status
Official title
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN.
Sponsor
Rep. Stauber, Pete (R-MN)
Introduced
Jan. 12, 2026
Cosponsors
4
Committees
House Natural Resources Committee
Latest action
April 27, 2026 · Became Public Law No: 119-85.
Congress.gov ↗
Official summary from the Congressional Research Service

This joint resolution opens approximately 225,504 acres of National Forest System lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties in Minnesota to mineral and geothermal leasing. Specifically, the joint resolution nullifies Public Land Order 7917 , which withdrew such land from mineral and geothermal leasing for 20 years beginning in 2023. The Bureau of Land Management issued the order to protect and preserve the Rainy River Watershed, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Mining Protection Area, and the 1854 Ceded Territory of the Lake Superior Chippewa from potential adverse effects of mineral and geothermal exploration and development. The joint resolution removes such protections and allows such land to be leased for the exploration and development of minerals and geothermal energy.

Summary on Congress.gov ↗
Everyone who lobbied on this bill (21 groups)

42 reports. Fees cover each report's whole lobbying effort, not just this bill.

Businesses and trade groups (4)

Labor unions (3)

Advocacy groups and nonprofits (14)

Not classified (0)

None.

Lobbying firms (21)

We sorted these groups by name and industry. The labels are ours, not legal categories.